How did they do it?

[Wal Pawlik]

Lately I have been listening to a lot of early '50s "pop" recordings and have been impressed by the quality of the bass tone on those recordings.
What struck me most was the rich "boinnn" tone of those basses. I know it's difficult to articulate the sound of an instrument, but drag out any Perry Como or Dean Martin record of that period and you can hear it.
I guess that back then, gut strings would have been widely used on the basses of that period.
I recently purchased a set of Lenzner Gut strings hoping to maybe emulate that sound, but sadly no, not even close.
Are there any older guys around that can perhaps recount how it was done back then?

[Marcus Johnson]

Welcome to the club. I've been chasing that all my life.

[Jake deVilliers]

Wrong area of the Forum Wal.

Try reading this "Portrait of a Tone Seeker" in the 'Strings' section: Gamut Guts

[Marcus Johnson]

Heh. Good one, Jake. I've come this close to going that route many times.

[Uncletoad]

I don't know where that sound came from. Everyone had it. Nobody I see or hear now does.

I think its the smoking. We should all drink and smoke all day and night again.

That should do it.

[drurb]

Did they have that sound live? That is, how much of it may be the result of 50s recording techniques (including mics, equalization, etc.)? I ask because many of those recordings have a characteristically "warm" lower midrange that was the result of the practices then in use.

[Marcus Johnson]

Thing is, That Sound wouldn't be useful to me for most of what I do at this point. The world changed since those recordings were the norm. Not necessarily for the better, but I do savor That Sound when I hear it.

You might want to contact Ben Wolfe. He is a really nice guy, generous with his time and knowledge, and has a strong connection to That Sound. Gut strings, no surprise there.

In retrospect, That Sound is probably why I love to listen to Perry Como and Dean Martin, and Tony Bennett and Nat Cole as much as I do, and probably it's why I love my job. Pop music was really good then. Little 3-4 minute gems. Listen to the orchestras on those recordings, you could drown in 'em.

[Jake deVilliers]

I'm heading there myself, if I ever get a bass set up for me.

I may not stay there forever, but I need to have gut around the house for a while, long enough that I can really understand its strengths and weaknesses. I'm a simple enough player that gut might even be the thing for me.

Cool that Wal mentioned Dean Martin. I heard some Dino on Radio L' Espace last week and was digging the rhythm section hard.

That fat, gut groove is relentless and irresistible, isn't it?

No wisecracks fellas, none of us is as skinny as we used to be!

[Wal Pawlik]

Originally Posted by drurb

Did they have that sound live? That is, how much of it may be the result of 50s recording techniques (including mics, equalization, etc.)? I ask because many of those recordings have a characteristically "warm" lower midrange that was the result of the practices then in use.

Yes, probably correct, and the big 12" speakers in the big radios I remember of that period that just sounded so warm.

[Wal Pawlik]

In retrospect, That Sound is probably why I love to listen to Perry Como and Dean Martin, and Tony Bennett and Nat Cole as much as I do, and probably it's why I love my job. Pop music was really good then. Little 3-4 minute gems. Listen to the orchestras on those recordings, you could drown in 'em.

Yes, I just love that stuff.

I have always said that if I was born 30 years earlier I could have been there.......but by now I'd probably be dead.

[Jake deVilliers]

There's a certain amount of 'that' sound that comes from other elements in the signal chain. Ribbon mikes are warmer, the pres were warmer, the tape didn't have the capacity to capture the highs etcetera, but gut is where it starts on the DB.

Sort of like the early bluegrass banjo sound that came from a hide head into a similar chain. Its way nicer to listen to, if not as clinically 'clean'.

Or maybe I'm just an old fart.

[Dave Martin]

Well, as much as I like ribbons on bass, there were a number of other microphones used (like the Altecs) that still managed to get the 'sound'. The EQ's of the day were, by today's standards, very primitive when they were used at all (more like tone controls on a stereo). My tech is just finishing up with a full restoration of a 6 channel Universal mixer - no EQ at all...
I'd suggest that more has to do with the size of the rooms that they recorded in back then and great arrangements that left room for the bass.

In addition, the guys doing sessions played HARD compared to most players today; amps weren't that all that popular (or avaiable) for live gigs, so bassists learned to beat the crap out of the instrument to get it to speak with authority. After all - even after he moved to steel strings, Ray Brown still had the 'sound'. It's a tough question, ain't it?

[Jason Sypher]

My instinct and experience tells me that it is string height and the plucking technique to make those strings sound big. Plus, the arrangements had s-p-a-c-e...for the bass.

[Hawaii Islander]

I used to listen to big band albums on my parents' old Telefunken tube high fidelity stereo system. I do think the tube amps in the radios and stereo gear at the time really helped to get the warm rich sound.

[Nuno A.]

gut strings, ribbon mikes, valve consoles and pre amps, great musicians and engineers who really knew what they were doing.
A couple of months ago i bought a Western Electric / Altec 639 B ribbon mike (same mike joe confort used to record the bass with the Nat King Cole Trio at Capitol) and this mike sounds better than anything else i tried, either live or studio, studio i use just the ribbon while live i use the cardioid position so that the microphone gets unidirectional and doesnt have much bleeding, ofcourse i cant use it in all shows, mostly i use it in a moderate volume piano trio in nice places.

Nuno

[Wal Pawlik]

Maybe there is some psycho-acoustic (is that the right spelling?)thing happening here as well. Sort of the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Or when all instuments combine they create that sound.

I have noticed that when playing along with some of that music, with no amplification to the bass, I can sometimes almost hear that tone.
Maybe I'm crazy but it sure is nice.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Wal Pawlik

Maybe there is some psycho-acoustic (is that the right spelling?)thing happening here as well. Sort of the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Or when all instuments combine they create that sound.

I have noticed that when playing along with some of that music, with no amplification to the bass, I can sometimes almost hear that tone.
Maybe I'm crazy but it sure is nice.

There are many factors at play. The spelling is "psychoacoustic." Allow me to clear up a misconception. The notion of subjective auditory perception is not what psychoacoustics is about. Please take a look at the first part of this post. I don't mean to pick on you at all, I'm just trying to clear up a misconception that goes right to the heart of what I do.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Dave Martin

Well, as much as I like ribbons on bass, there were a number of other microphones used (like the Altecs) that still managed to get the 'sound'. The EQ's of the day were, by today's standards, very primitive when they were used at all (more like tone controls on a stereo). My tech is just finishing up with a full restoration of a 6 channel Universal mixer - no EQ at all...
I'd suggest that more has to do with the size of the rooms that they recorded in back then and great arrangements that left room for the bass.

In addition, the guys doing sessions played HARD compared to most players today; amps weren't that all that popular (or avaiable) for live gigs, so bassists learned to beat the crap out of the instrument to get it to speak with authority. After all - even after he moved to steel strings, Ray Brown still had the 'sound'. It's a tough question, ain't it?

Ah, I could go on ad nauseum about the equipment used in the 50's. I'll try not to do that. Actually, there were some pretty sophisticated EQ devices even that long ago. By EQ, I am assuming you mean tone-shaping. Let's talk about "real EQ" for a moment. The necessity to apply EQ came about as a result of the limitations of transcribing to vinyl. Groove velocities had to be limited and it was useful to reduce the noise floor as well. So, low-frequencies were cut and highs boosted into the cutter head with the inverse being applied at playback. In the early 1950's, before the RIAA curve became standard, there were no less than four different curves used (e.g., Columbia, RCA-AES, FFRR, EUR). Audiophile equipment of the day actually allowed the user to select among the curves. Despite (or because of) all of this, LPs were characterized by a high-frequency roll-off that is often associated with the "vinyl sound." Then we have the amplifiers of the day. Tubes, followed by output transformers, of course. The interactions of those components with the loudspeakers of the day all added up to a common lower-midrange rise resulting in that "warm" sound. It didn't hurt either that the vast majority of the music of the day (and right through to the 1970s) was mixed on the venerable British 15" Tannoy dual-concentric (aka "coax') monitor. That speaker had the classic "British sound" which was-- you guessed it, lower mid-range warmth. Now, you take all of this and combine it with what others have mentioned about double-bass strings and playing style and you've got "the sound." (Okay, I tried to keep it short. )

[Wal Pawlik]

Wow...I don't pretend to understand all that psychoacoustic stuff as described by you, I always thought it related the effect where the brain was fooled into hearing something that was not there, but somehow synthesized.
I for one am quite happy with what 50's technology was able to produce when "warm" was the standard. So much better than todays Hi Fi and sterile sound that has to be "warmed" with all manner of "acoustic processors" that disguise the original sound of the instrument.
So perhaps we are no further. In the past recording instuments changed their tone and today the same thing happens.....

[Uncletoad]

I still think it was the smoking.